//Just got back from a week vacation in Vancouver. Thank you expensive health plan and the $30 co pay for my vasectomy!

I saw a car that had that last night... Ok not excatly, it was a man* and woman and two dogs. I think they missed the point that the icons are supposed to justify your Behemoth vehicle because your family is so large.

/*Probably was a woman in pantsuit and short hair.//I want a sticker that says:

umad:Now you're just moving the goalposts. You are pretty much telling me that I am not allowed to have any problems with our current government because "society" made it the way it is, and thus it is the way it should be. The original argument was that we are paying for the services that we benefitted from as children.

"Society" apparently didn't think it was necessary for so many government programs when I was a kid, so why are they necessary now?

No, I'm not. I'm stating the obvious to you, in terms of your complaints. You have the right to be unhappy about it. You have the right to organize. You just need to understand the reason why programs are increasing is because the viewpoint that we should raise the standard of living for everyone keeps outvoting the alternate viewpoints. You're right, the idea you're paying backwards is silly, as it's silly for most of the old people not to try and convince themselves they actually paid in as much benefit as they received. You're paying now for what we currently have written into law, and what's written into law currently is predicated on the belief there's a benefit to everyone to maintain to the best of our abilities a certain level of employment, education services, and medical care. If you want to convince people to vote with you to change the laws, you need to convince them that there's not a benefit to all of us to making sure children receive a basic education, basic medical care, and basic police protections.

umad:"Society" apparently didn't think it was necessary for so many government programs when I was a kid, so why are they necessary now?

How old are you? I'm just curious how ignorant you are of what programs were available in your youth.

You implied you weren't a child in 1972, so that puts you back to being born in the 50's. In which case, not really worth arguing with. We're just waiting for your ignorant Leave it Beaver idolizing boom ass to die anyhow so we can get something done.

umad:onzmadi: Meh She has some valid points..especially about the resturant thing. I take my kid out so I dont have to cook and clean. Also if you choose to eat at a "Family" dining establishment why are you judging parents who bring their families you non-breeding hipster douchnozzles.

Seems like the childless ones are out in force in this thread, but it is FARK so you know you have to move out of your mom's basement to have kids

I like how you and the author are both acting like we are talking about "family restaurants" when you know damn well that we aren't. There was a farking baby at the midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises during the Aurora shooting. Do you think those people would have any issues with dragging their baby along to a 5-star restaurant?

Seems like the childed ones are out in force in this thread and are ignorant as hell.

If the restaurant is called "family style" that means it has created a menu and setting that are generally child friendly. That doesn't mean there's an all-purpose blanket excuse for allowing the children you bring to act like entitled, obnoxious, spoiled schmucks.

When my folks took us out to family friendly restaurants they still expected us to behave ourselves. That's not because they were extra-special-great parents, it's just because they were regular parents. Insisting that your children behave themselves is a minimum requirement for being a responsible parent.

umad:There was a farking baby at the midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises during the Aurora shooting. Do you think those people would have any issues with dragging their baby along to a 5-star restaurant?

I doubt anyone who does this can afford to eat at a 5 start restaurant. It's unlikely that they are employed at all. If they do happen to be employed well I have it on good authority that those 'special' employment centers that sell washer toss games and whatnot don't pay very well.

In listing programs he said that he gained no benefit from he included WIC that started in 1972 (when the absurdity of requiring doctors to write a prescription for food that would then be covered, eventually, after many middlemen took a cut, through medicaid, hit home). So he was over 16 in 1972 which puts him as being born before 1956.

Also the obvious answers to "Society" apparently didn't think it was necessary for so many government programs when I was a kid, so why are they necessary now? " branch from attacking people who nostalgically (from a white, upper middle class upbringing) view the 60's as being like Leave it to Beaver.

taoistlumberjak:5. No One Wants to Watch a Video of Your Child that is Longer than 12 seconds LongMost people don't have an attention span. If it's a constant stream of funny, then anything longer is fine with reason. If you have to wait for the payoffarkid carrying around plate of spaghetti, drops it on dog), then tell people when it happens in the video.

This is actually more a depressing commentary on the state of societal attention spans.

Alternatively, it is a perfectly reasonable commentary on the state of "funny kid videos." Kid drops spaghetti on dog? That's kinda funny, that's worth a 15-second lead-up before the drop, but 90% of the time it's gonna be a 2 minute video of the kid being "oh so adorably cute" (to NO ONE but its hormone-and-instinct driven parents) followed by the kid doing something "HILARIOUS!!!!111one" like burping.

It's not actually funny, it takes way too long, and it would result in my hate if I still watched those kind of videos.

But I don't, because I've learne: if it is at all funny it will show up on someone else' youtube compilation, America's funniest home videos, and it will be properly edited.

umad:Bumblefark: Still a fairly recent parent myself. I don't begrudge people getting irritated when a child is acting out in public. I don't want to be around that anymore than they do (and nobody understands that better than my own children, for what it's worth).

But, I still find amazing is the sheer number of people that get *preemptively* annoyed, in a a very demonstrative manner, simply by the presence of a small child or some fleeting moment of (god forbid) childlike behavior (e.g., the plaintive, world-weary sigh when me and my daughter sit down next to you in a public place).

Still waiting for some poor sucker to overstep his bounds, and throw his little adult-tantrum in a way that my kid actually notices. Because, at that point, I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose my shiat...in a very demonstrative manner.

You are looking for an excuse to lose your shiat on someone because your comfort in public is obviously more important than theirs, so they need to STFU and deal with it. Yet you wonder why people are "preemptively annoyed" with you?

Here is your typical parent everybody.

...no, I said they need to not act like a jackass simply because my daughter sits down next to them in a public place. The implication was that rules of public courtesy apply even to small children in those spaces. And, yeah, if you decide to be rude to my kid simply for existing, I'm going to make your life a hell of a lot less pleasant in return. I'd do the same even if it wasn't my kid, because you're just human garbage...

...But, go ahead and be preemptively retarded about what I wrote, snowflake.

Bumblefark:umad: Bumblefark: Still a fairly recent parent myself. I don't begrudge people getting irritated when a child is acting out in public. I don't want to be around that anymore than they do (and nobody understands that better than my own children, for what it's worth).

But, I still find amazing is the sheer number of people that get *preemptively* annoyed, in a a very demonstrative manner, simply by the presence of a small child or some fleeting moment of (god forbid) childlike behavior (e.g., the plaintive, world-weary sigh when me and my daughter sit down next to you in a public place).

Still waiting for some poor sucker to overstep his bounds, and throw his little adult-tantrum in a way that my kid actually notices. Because, at that point, I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose my shiat...in a very demonstrative manner.

You are looking for an excuse to lose your shiat on someone because your comfort in public is obviously more important than theirs, so they need to STFU and deal with it. Yet you wonder why people are "preemptively annoyed" with you?

Here is your typical parent everybody.

...no, I said they need to not act like a jackass simply because my daughter sits down next to them in a public place. The implication was that rules of public courtesy apply even to small children in those spaces. And, yeah, if you decide to be rude to my kid simply for existing, I'm going to make your life a hell of a lot less pleasant in return. I'd do the same even if it wasn't my kid, because you're just human garbage...

...But, go ahead and be preemptively retarded about what I wrote, snowflake.

What I got out of this was "being a parent sucks and anyone who doesn't have kids doesn't understand this and needs to stfu." No, that's precisely why some of us don't have kids, so we understand perfectly.

One thing that bothers me about this topic when it comes up is the parents who actually expect that people are not going to look at their children when they're screaming/crying/making a scene. Some parents get really upset about people looking their way when a loud, disruptive commotion is coming from their kids, as if it's totally unnatural for people to draw their attention to it. This whole "don't you dare look at us when my kid cries" thing is really ridiculous. Most of us "non-breeders" don't possess the tune out ability that parents seem to acquire. It's no different than if I'm on the streets of a city and some homeless, crazy drunk is ranting obscenities at the wind. People are naturally going to look, then realize he's a crazy and avoid eye contact as you quickly try to get out of there.

babygoat:Bumblefark: umad: Bumblefark: Still a fairly recent parent myself. I don't begrudge people getting irritated when a child is acting out in public. I don't want to be around that anymore than they do (and nobody understands that better than my own children, for what it's worth).

But, I still find amazing is the sheer number of people that get *preemptively* annoyed, in a a very demonstrative manner, simply by the presence of a small child or some fleeting moment of (god forbid) childlike behavior (e.g., the plaintive, world-weary sigh when me and my daughter sit down next to you in a public place).

Still waiting for some poor sucker to overstep his bounds, and throw his little adult-tantrum in a way that my kid actually notices. Because, at that point, I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose my shiat...in a very demonstrative manner.

You are looking for an excuse to lose your shiat on someone because your comfort in public is obviously more important than theirs, so they need to STFU and deal with it. Yet you wonder why people are "preemptively annoyed" with you?

Here is your typical parent everybody.

...no, I said they need to not act like a jackass simply because my daughter sits down next to them in a public place. The implication was that rules of public courtesy apply even to small children in those spaces. And, yeah, if you decide to be rude to my kid simply for existing, I'm going to make your life a hell of a lot less pleasant in return. I'd do the same even if it wasn't my kid, because you're just human garbage...

...But, go ahead and be preemptively retarded about what I wrote, snowflake.

No, that was exactly what you said, you asshole.

*re-reads post*

So, you don't understand what "e.g." means, or how it functions within a text.

maxx2112:FTFA: 2.Control Your Children in Restaurants - Look, if you see a kid at a restaurant, more times than not, it's because you've chosen to go to a "family" restaurant, and "family" often means loud-mouthed litte (sic) brats.

9.What Really Annoys Me Is When Parents Yell at their Kids But Never Get Out of Their Chair and Deal with the Kid - Well, how are we supposed to "deal with it"? We yelled at the kid, didn't we?

JPSimonetti:Mercutio74: Full disclosure, I'm a parent of a 4 yr old girl.

The article makes some good points, but number 9 is bullshiat. Whenever my precious snowflake is doing something that isn't very precious and is annoying/hurting/generally shiat disturbing others and she doesn't respond to my chairbourne correction, I get up and deal with her.... usually by crouching down in front of her, telling her I want to talk to her, explaining why what she's doing isn't acceptable and threatening her with a time out if she continues. If that doesn't take care of it, then I follow through with the time out unless she behaves.

Why do I do this? Because I want my chair-based words of correction to farking mean something. My sister in law shrieks at her children and they don't give a fark because they know it doesn't mean anything. On the other hand, the 9 times out of 10 when I calmly tell her to stop doing something stupid and other parents tell me how well behaved she is, it's not because she's awesome (which she is, I have to be honest) it's because she knows that there are consistent and knowable consequences to misbehaving and it's more fun to find something else to get into.

We have plenty of ways to make our kids behave without thrashing them or inducing some kind of cruelty... if your kid is misbehaving it's probably because you don't follow through on your correction of their behaviour and they know you're full of shiat.

First off, this is not sarcasm ... Using fear as a tactic to keep kids in line is absolutely a great way to get them to pull it together in public. I use that card with my 9 year old a few times a month. A very sharp glare and pointed finger is all it takes for him to straighten up, and it doesn't cause a scene. He knows what's coming next. It is that fear that makes him straighten up. It was that fear that kept ME in line as a kid. It works, and it's more humane than constant beatings. (my father and I have a great relationship these days. it did ...

Non-breeder here, so take this with the appropriately sized grain of salt.

It's more than fear. It's making the connection between choices and their consequences. The child can choose to behave or misbehave and you've made it quite clear that there are consequences as a result of that choice: a nice trip out and about or...something, hopefully physical pain (j/k). But the sooner children learn this, the better adjusted they become to society and the faster they can move on to learning other social skills. You and Mercutio74 seem to be doing a great job, so keep it up!

Cybernetic:nytmare: Friendly's restaurant is a great place to eat if you like listening to screaming babies and toddlers.

Some restaurant chain might do pretty well with a slogan like, "Bring your screaming kids here so other people won't have to hear them."

Maybe, but I doubt it. Children are like cigarette smoke, you generally learn to ignore your own but you don't like anyone else's. Back when restaurants had "smoking sections" it was a common occurrence for smokers to sit in the non-smoking sections, after snagging an ashtray, if they thought they could get away with it. I watched it happen often. The same applies to parents of screaming children. They are miserable among other screeching toddlers and numb to their own, so they go to your restaurant and remain numb to their children and make everyone else miserable. Because the alternative is being miserable themselves, at a "family" restaurant.

Oh, and "bring your destructive coont-turds" restaurants tend to be objectively terrible. Aside from what the children do, (and the sticky little monsters do a lot) the food is lousy, unhealthy, and expensive. I presume because of the need for extra staff, extra cleaning, extra repair-work, and extra insurance.

santadog:Missicat: GORDON: PanicMan: I refuse to accept the term "non-breeder" in any way, shape, or form.

Fortunately I can pay for my own hospice/nursing home care....also, do parents really have kids just so they can have someone to take care of them when they get old? What if your kids have children of their own? Pretty selfish attitude...

This. I opted not to give birth to my own waitstaff. I can afford hospice because I didn't blow a million outfitting a mini me.

Enjoy being surrounded by strangers who don't care about you in your waning years.

THX 1138:Surpheon: people who nostalgically (from a white, upper middle class upbringing) view the 60's as being like Leave it to Beaver.

I have absolutely no clue where he nostalgically reminisced about the '60s as being like Leave it to Beaver, but it must be there somewhere if you're making it such a main part of your argument.

Not sure how you get from a closing accusation to "a main part of your argument". The main part of my argument is that current adults received a shiatload of societal funding in their youth, so complaining about paying taxes for schools and such now when 'I don't use them' is disingenuous. I've also pointed out how when he cited programs he didn't get any benefit from, he is conveniently ignoring welfare programs that were paying out when he was a child but do not exist anymore. I admit the sideline commentary on the time value of money in the 70's was pretty dense and probably inappropriate for this venue, but I'm awfully amused that you seem to think my closing insult is a main part of my argument.

Surpheon:CrazyCracka420: Do you realize we humans are breeding at exponential rates,

Human "breeding" rate has been dropping since 1963 and most demographers expect it to naturally go negative in our lifetimes (and that's assuming no disasters push it along). But that's just, you know, documented reality - don't bother to put your latte' down, I know you have to finish it up before heading to the gym in 26 minutes.

lostcat:santadog: Missicat: GORDON: PanicMan: I refuse to accept the term "non-breeder" in any way, shape, or form.

Fortunately I can pay for my own hospice/nursing home care....also, do parents really have kids just so they can have someone to take care of them when they get old? What if your kids have children of their own? Pretty selfish attitude...

This. I opted not to give birth to my own waitstaff. I can afford hospice because I didn't blow a million outfitting a mini me.

Enjoy being surrounded by strangers who don't care about you in your waning years.

Man, you folks plan to be pretty pathetic old people. Am I the only one that's ever listened to The Who?

lostcat:santadog: Missicat: GORDON: PanicMan: I refuse to accept the term "non-breeder" in any way, shape, or form.

Fortunately I can pay for my own hospice/nursing home care....also, do parents really have kids just so they can have someone to take care of them when they get old? What if your kids have children of their own? Pretty selfish attitude...

This. I opted not to give birth to my own waitstaff. I can afford hospice because I didn't blow a million outfitting a mini me.

Enjoy being surrounded by strangers who don't care about you in your waning years.

Giving birth does not guarantee being surrounded by loved ones in your waning years.

I've seen a lot of talk in this thread about "how do you deal with unruly children". I mentioned a few things (aka, "give them something to do") but I haven't really seen anyone use this word yet: expectations.

If you have kids you simply can not put them in ANY situation without giving them expectations first and hope it will succeed. They may need some guidance/course correction once in that situation but you have to do the up front "work". It takes all of 30 seconds:

"We are all going to a restaurant tonight. There are no loud voices, no running, etc etc ....or there will be no dessert and there WILL be early bed time".

...or....

"Grandma doesn't hear well so make sure you look right at her and speak loudly and use your 'please' and 'thank you'-s".

And you have to temper this sometimes with..

"I want you to scream and play and have fun and throw water balloons at me as much as you want to". After, they are kids. They need to blow off steam like the rest of us.

If you didn't set the behavioral expectation - you are the one to blame.

CrazyCracka420:Surpheon: CrazyCracka420: Do you realize we humans are breeding at exponential rates,

Human "breeding" rate has been dropping since 1963 and most demographers expect it to naturally go negative in our lifetimes (and that's assuming no disasters push it along). But that's just, you know, documented reality - don't bother to put your latte' down, I know you have to finish it up before heading to the gym in 26 minutes.

THX 1138:Surpheon: people who nostalgically (from a white, upper middle class upbringing) view the 60's as being like Leave it to Beaver.

I have absolutely no clue where he nostalgically reminisced about the '60s as being like Leave it to Beaver, but it must be there somewhere if you're making it such a main part of your argument.

Don't worry about it. I was only responding to the "you are paying for the services you used as a kid" claim anyway. I don't actually care one way or the other. I basically brought it up to demonstrate how parents will lose their shiat if you threaten to stop financially supporting their decisions. They are ENTITLED to that money dammit!

Mitch Taylor's Bro:Non-breeder here, so take this with the appropriately sized grain of salt.

It's more than fear. It's making the connection between choices and their consequences. The child can choose to behave or misbehave and you've made it quite clear that there are consequences as a result of that choice: a nice trip out and about or...something, hopefully physical pain (j/k). But the sooner children learn this, the better adjusted they become to society and the faster they can move on to learning other social skills. You and Mercutio74 seem to be doing a great job, so keep it up!

For a non-member of the club, you seem to have quite a good understanding of it. I remember the halcyon days of pre-parent me hearing everyone and their uncle say that kids are "testing their boundaries" yadda yadda yadda. Not only is that true, but I always assumed it was a sub-conscious thing on their part... nope, the little farkers consciously and with full knowledge of what's expected and what's taboo test the boundary of what they can get away with. All the time my daughter will go to do something "bad" (like unplugging a piece of electronic equipment I'm using, for example)... but before she does, she'll pause, look right at me and smile like she's a Bond villain about to explain her whole plan to James Bond before retiring to the next room waiting for him to die in an elaborate and inefficient manner.

All she wants is to be noticed, told she's being a poop (yeah, well, she's four, I'm not going to call her a little shiat... that'll have to wait until she's at least 8-10 yrs old) and then she'll move on with her life. More often than not, it looks to me that most kiddie misbehaviour is just kids wanting to be acknowledged and also bump up against the maximum amount of what they can get away with. It becomes problematic when the kids never find a boundary. And that's why this generation of parents suck... a sizeable number don't get that.

cgraves67:As a parent, I agree that there are a lot of bad parents in the world, but a lot of the ones people complain about, do the things they do because it is what works. You can go into parenting with a basic plan on how to handle feeding, clothing, and disciplining a child, but raising a child is similar to combat in the sense that, once engaged, all planning goes out the window. You simply have to do what works, even if the people around are annoyed or disapprove.

That's where you lost me. If the people around you are annoyed or disapprove, what you are doing is not working and you need to do something else.

There are always exceptions, such as if you HAVE to have your child with you while you're grocery shopping (because who expects you to get a babysitter just to run errands?) and your child HAS to have a meltdown, okay, you have to deal with both problems at once as best you can.

But if your child is having a meltdown at a "family" restaurant, that is not okay and it's time to teach your child the basic rules of society. How you do that is up to you, but if people if you try talking to your child or threatening them and others are still annoyed and disapprove of their behavior, try something else until they stop being annoyed and disapproving. That's how you know what you're doing is working.

CrazyCracka420:Surpheon: CrazyCracka420: Do you realize we humans are breeding at exponential rates,

Human "breeding" rate has been dropping since 1963 and most demographers expect it to naturally go negative in our lifetimes (and that's assuming no disasters push it along). But that's just, you know, documented reality - don't bother to put your latte' down, I know you have to finish it up before heading to the gym in 26 minutes.

Oh rry

[upload.wikimedia.org image 512x320]

(BTW, the graph you posted is a te

CrazyCracka420:Surpheon: CrazyCracka420: Do you realize we humans are breeding at exponential rates,

Human "breeding" rate has been dropping since 1963 and most demographers expect it to naturally go negative in our lifetimes (and that's assuming no disasters push it along). But that's just, you know, documented reality - don't bother to put your latte' down, I know you have to finish it up before heading to the gym in 26 minutes.

THX 1138:Surpheon: people who nostalgically (from a white, upper middle class upbringing) view the 60's as being like Leave it to Beaver.

I have absolutely no clue where he nostalgically reminisced about the '60s as being like Leave it to Beaver, but it must be there somewhere if you're making it such a main part of your argument.

Surpheonis not making it a main part of the argument, but a simile to explain the meta-concept. I shall attempt to clarify, since it is already fairly obvious.

Umad is taking a fairly unrelated topic and cramming his "I hate gubbmint" dick in the mashed potatoes, in this case by claiming "I was raised just fine without all that there dangol' Gubbmint Intervention and Welfare State Spendin'! I'm an island! Why ain't you Welfare Queens islands?"

Doing the MATH, that means umad must have been a child of the 50s or 60s and pretty much and adult by 1972. Doing the social studies, that meanshe (she?) has the rose-tinted viewpoint that life back in ye olden days of 1950-1969 was just fine for everyone. It is a viewpoint that is delusional and a trope best exemplified by Leave it to Beaver and the false nostalgia associated with Leave it to Beaver.

Or to put it really simply; nostalgia is bullshiat, before welfare programs children died or grew up criminals a lot more.

Though oddly enough they spent less time in prison, because we didn't have all those non-violent drug offenders doing lifetime sentences.

lostcat:Enjoy being surrounded by strangers who don't care about you in your waning years.

An a similar note... before I had a kid, I though a lot about my own mortality. I wondered if I'd look back and be satisfied when I'm old and that kind of stuff. I don't really think about it that much anymore. There's a definite and palpable purpose that comes with bringing someone you love into the world and preparing them to face the challenges that life will give them. There's more deep meaning in my relationship with my daughter than any religion had ever offered me.

TheBigJerk:Umad is taking a fairly unrelated topic and cramming his "I hate gubbmint" dick in the mashed potatoes, in this case by claiming "I was raised just fine without all that there dangol' Gubbmint Intervention and Welfare State Spendin'! I'm an island! Why ain't you Welfare Queens islands?"

Bullshiat.

umad:I was only responding to the "you are paying for the services you used as a kid" claim anyway. I don't actually care one way or the other.

Head_Shot:Egoy3k: ITT: parents being defensive about being unfairly criticized then saying things like;

"You will die alone."and"People without kids are fat losers who play WOW in their mother's basement."

I sure hope your spouses are better role models for your children.

Regarding the WoW comment; Relax, I wasn't talking about people without kids, I was speaking specifically about you.

My comments in this thread were a reaction to the parent from TFA having a tantrum that he isn't allowed to spank his kids because of "hippy liberals" and about how people shouldn't ever get upset about stuff posted to Facebook. I'm not sure why I would be the specific target for your posts but whatever makes you happy I guess.

I agree with the overall sentiment of the article, but there were a lot of clues that tell me the author is a biatch. I have two kids, 7 and 4. I have never allowed them to make a mess at a restaurant, no matter how big of a tip I plan to leave. From day one I made a show of staying tidy and if the kids dropped anything they were corrected and assisted in cleaning up after themselves. When they were old enough, I explained how rude it is to leave a mess. The youngest has had noisy meltdowns and one of us takes him to the car until he's calm. You need to teach your kids not to be rude little dicks lest they end up biatching about breeders on Fark or writing shiatty blogs.

Damn, this could have been a good one. Sorry I'm late to the derpfest.

I feel qualified in commenting on other peoples kids, as I spent 4 years raising (at the start) 2 and 3 year old. (not mine, long story, fark off)

I have only one important comment. If you have children, and they make a mess at dinner YOU ARE A BAD PARENT. If you then take your kids to a public eatery and let them make a mess there, YOU ARE A BAD HUMAN BEING. If you then say something even remotely like "that's why we went out", you are... going to get punched.

I'm an adult, I have no children (by choice), I have a lovely wife, she has no children (by choice). I don't want to see your kids, hear your kids, deal with your kids. There is no excuse what so ever for parents to take their kids out in public if the kids can't behave as adults do. If you can't teach your kid properly, I want you to understand, this is not my farking problem, and I will make sure you know it. I can't tell you how many times I've had a nice dinner interrupted by a child misbehaving. I am paying these nice people so that I don't have to cook. If your kid can't behave in public, YOU DON'T GET TO farkING TAKE THEM IN PUBLIC. Do you get that?

I'm so tired of self righteous coonts whose only accomplishment was to get pregnant, bringing their dirty, noisy, disrespectful shiat makers into public spaces and then throwing up their hands and saying things like "kids, what are you going to do "

I'll tell you, the next time I hear that, I'm going to bend the kid over my leg and beat his ass. I might consider doing it to the mother as well.

umad:I basically brought it up to demonstrate how parents will lose their shiat if you threaten to stop financially supporting their decisions. They are ENTITLED to that money dammit!

umad:"Society" apparently didn't think it was necessary for so many government programs when I was a kid, so why are they necessary now?

umad:I suppose you will be fine with us eliminating any programs that didn't exist at the time our parents were raising us as well, which is a shiatload of them.

umad:WIC started in 1972.The Earned Income Tax Credit was enacted in 1975.Per child tax credits have been raised from $400 in 1998 to $1000 today.

I could keep going, but you get the point. If you say I still owe for when I was a kid, then fine. But I should only have to pay for the services that were actually available when I was a kid. Here is where you disagree and say that the rest of us should have to pay for your decisions, because that is what parents actually want.

Just a quick recap of how we got the impression you were an old asshole.

Moonfisher:I agree with the overall sentiment of the article, but there were a lot of clues that tell me the author is a biatch. I have two kids, 7 and 4. I have never allowed them to make a mess at a restaurant, no matter how big of a tip I plan to leave. From day one I made a show of staying tidy and if the kids dropped anything they were corrected and assisted in cleaning up after themselves. When they were old enough, I explained how rude it is to leave a mess. The youngest has had noisy meltdowns and one of us takes him to the car until he's calm. You need to teach your kids not to be rude little dicks lest they end up biatching about breeders on Fark or writing shiatty blogs.

Well put. I've had to drag screaming kids out of a restaurant and sit them down outside until they calmed down (but just mine, doing that to other peoples kids is apparently not ok). This is how they learn to behave in society, with experience and practice. When people cry that you should keep your kids at home until they can behave in public shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how children learn to behave in public. That said, just because they're learning is not an excuse to leave a Shermanesque path of destruction behind you every time you take your kids to dinner. It isn't hard to wipe some of the disaster back onto the plate when you're done, or wipe up the milk spill. The author loses significant points in suggesting that the price of dinner out includes hurricane coverage for the restaurant.

Occasionally my boss will bring his kid into work. He does it surprisingly regularly so it can't always be some kind of "emergency" situation. Kind of bugs me but on the other hand I don't really care all that much.

I'm a happy non-breeder. I don't really like children. Mostly I try not to interact with them as much as possible. Probably I'm a selfish bastard but as such I don't care what others might think about me.

Mitch Taylor's Bro:cgraves67: As a parent, I agree that there are a lot of bad parents in the world, but a lot of the ones people complain about, do the things they do because it is what works. You can go into parenting with a basic plan on how to handle feeding, clothing, and disciplining a child, but raising a child is similar to combat in the sense that, once engaged, all planning goes out the window. You simply have to do what works, even if the people around are annoyed or disapprove.

That's where you lost me. If the people around you are annoyed or disapprove, what you are doing is not working and you need to do something else.

There are always exceptions, such as if you HAVE to have your child with you while you're grocery shopping (because who expects you to get a babysitter just to run errands?) and your child HAS to have a meltdown, okay, you have to deal with both problems at once as best you can.

But if your child is having a meltdown at a "family" restaurant, that is not okay and it's time to teach your child the basic rules of society. How you do that is up to you, but if people if you try talking to your child or threatening them and others are still annoyed and disapprove of their behavior, try something else until they stop being annoyed and disapproving. That's how you know what you're doing is working.

That's what I mean. A parent has to be persistent and try different things until something works. Even with a pretty good child, some things that usually work don't always do it. So while you're escalating the severity of the discipline or trying different distractions, the people sitting around you are losing their cool. Sometimes you have to take a kid out of the situation to get their cooperation. Sometimes you have to walk around with them. I've had to do that and I feel bad for the people we are disturbing by meandering up and down the aisles. It had to be done though in order to have a happy kid who eats his dinner.

umad:Surpheon: umad: That is fine with me. I suppose you will be fine with us eliminating any programs that didn't exist at the time our parents were raising us as well, which is a shiatload of them.

Go ahead and list 'em out. Try to grasp a bit of reality, or at least respect the big Newt-Clinton welfare ax that fell in the 90's - depending when you were raised, it is entirely likely there was MORE spending on children ('welfare queens' were rare but not extinct in the 70's 80's and early 90's).

If you were lying when you claimed to not have been a child in 1972 it's not my fault for believing it. Not to mention if you actually did benefit from all those programs you listed, you aren't merely ignorant of the programs they replaced or being an asshole, you're just another liar making shiat up to support your opinion. Isn't there a Tim Eyman campaign you can go volunteer at or something to keep busy?